Scottish FA Board Statement

Monday 11 September 2017

The Board of the Scottish FA has considered the recent requests from the SPFL and one of our member clubs to participate in an independent review in light of the UK Supreme Court judgment on the use of EBTs by Rangers FC and its implications for Scottish football.

Notwithstanding the Board’s statement of July 5th 2017, it considered the request and explored the potential scope of any additional independent review in some detail. After a full debate, the Board’s position remains unchanged for the following reasons.

The Scottish FA has examined new information with respect to what is commonly referred to as the Wee Tax Case and the awarding of a UEFA Licence in 2011. This information came to light in the recent Craig Whyte trial and concerns the testimony in Court of two former directors of Rangers FC regarding “overdue payables” to HMRC and relating to a Discounted Option Scheme.

The matter has now been referred to the Scottish FA’s Compliance Officer for further investigation following receipt of a written opinion from Senior Counsel.

Moreover, the events of the last six years have contributed directly to many amendments to the Scottish FA Articles and Judicial Panel Protocol to address the key learnings. These include:

•An enhanced role for the Board in our governance structure

•Stronger powers for the PGB and the NPGB

•Strengthened processes in relation to insolvency and change of control

•Bolstering the duty of good faith

•Clarity on what information is to be lodged within the context of players’ contracts

•A clearer separation of powers between the executive and judicial activities of the Scottish FA and a more specific and detailed menu of sanctions.

It is also worth noting that all relevant Scottish FA disciplinary tribunals were undertaken with senior legal advisors. Indeed, all such cases were also chaired by senior legal figures.

In summary, the Board of the Scottish FA has considered thoroughly the implications of the recent UK Supreme Court Judgement and, furthermore, has identified specific matters from the Craig Whyte trial that require to be revisited.